From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] IBM Z: fix `section type conflict` with -mindirect-branch-table
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:49:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220201204904.1827129-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
Bootstrapped and regtested on s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master?
s390_code_end () puts indirect branch tables into separate sections and
tries to switch back to wherever it was in the beginning by calling
switch_to_section (current_function_section ()).
First of all, this is unnecessary - the other backends don't do it.
Furthermore, at this time there is no current function, but if the
last processed function was cold, in_cold_section_p remains set. This
causes targetm.asm_out.function_section () to call
targetm.section_type_flags (), which in absence of current function
decl classifies the section as SECTION_WRITE. This causes a section
type conflict with the existing SECTION_CODE.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/s390/s390.cc (s390_code_end): Do not switch back to
code section.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/s390/nobp-section-type-conflict.c: New test.
---
gcc/config/s390/s390.cc | 1 -
.../s390/nobp-section-type-conflict.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/nobp-section-type-conflict.c
diff --git a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
index 43c5c72554a..2db12d4ba4b 100644
--- a/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/s390/s390.cc
@@ -16809,7 +16809,6 @@ s390_code_end (void)
assemble_name_raw (asm_out_file, label_start);
fputs ("-.\n", asm_out_file);
}
- switch_to_section (current_function_section ());
}
}
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/nobp-section-type-conflict.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/nobp-section-type-conflict.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5d78bc99bb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/nobp-section-type-conflict.c
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+/* Checks that we don't get error: section type conflict with ‘put_page’. */
+
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-mindirect-branch=thunk-extern -mfunction-return=thunk-extern -mindirect-branch-table -O2" } */
+
+int a;
+int b (void);
+void c (int);
+
+static void
+put_page (void)
+{
+ if (b ())
+ c (a);
+}
+
+__attribute__ ((__section__ (".init.text"), __cold__)) void
+d (void)
+{
+ put_page ();
+ put_page ();
+}
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-02-01 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-01 20:49 Ilya Leoshkevich [this message]
2022-02-01 21:02 ` Andreas Krebbel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220201204904.1827129-1-iii@linux.ibm.com \
--to=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=krebbel@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).